LexKARUNAKARAN versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c 0 E F G H 708 K..iRUNAKARAN v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU I\' ovember 12, 197 5 [P. K. GOSWAMI AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.J ,J- Testimony-Co111·ictio11 on the basis of the sole testimony of a single ll'it- 111• ness, even uncorroborated by other eridence, if absolutely ~eliab/e is 1·1Jlid- Co11stitutio11 of India Art. 136-Rule of Practice interference by i/1e Supreme Court by reappraisal of evidence. The appellant along with "J" & 'T" was charged for offences u/s 120B/ 109/ 302 I.P.C. as well as 302 /34 l.P.C. The trial which proceeded in the absence of absconding 'T", resulted in the conviction and both the accused were sentenced to death sentence. On a reference and apJ?_eals by the accused, the· High Court acquitted ''J" rejecting l'our out of five eye witnesses and disbelieving even the only other eye witness who lodged the First Information Report. The High Court however maioiained the conviction· and confirmed the death sentence on-the appe1lant relying on the testimony of the very same single witness. On appeal by special leave, the Court HELD: (i) Ordinarily in an appeal under Art. 136 of the Constitution, the Court would hesitate to go into the facts to reappreciate the evidence. It is. however. not possible to adopt that course, where the testi.mony of the sole witness has been rejected with reference to the second accused who was on the same boat with the appellant. When the accused is going to lose his life in such a serious charge u/s 302 1.P.C.; it is only nece5'ary that the Court should be circumspect and closely scrutinise the evidenc~ to come to an un· hesitating conclusion that the sole single witness is absolutely reliable. [7100, H, 711H, 712AJ (ii) Jn the insta·nt case, the High Court was not correct in appreciatin.~ the ocular testimony of a sole witn·ess. because (a) the very fact that the eye wit- ness could be persuaded to substitute PWs. 1, 2. and 3 for his deceased brother as chasing the assailants. contrary to the version of the F.I.R. degrades him from ti1e status of an ab'lolutely reliable witness. not having a qualm of cons- cience, but an obliging and untrustworthy witness. [71 OH] (b) The version in the F.l.R. stands contradicted by tho testimony in court on a very material point and does not cqrroborate. [712-B] (c) Placing such reliance. therefore_ as is requi9ite on the testimony <'>f the uncorroborated solitary witness for convicting the accused facing a murder charge is not possible in the cas·e. [7 J 2-B] -:,, CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTIO'I : Criminal Appeal No. 425 of 1974. Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 22nJ July 1974 of the Madras High Court at Mm:lras in ·Criminal Appc~l No. 24 of 1974 and Referred Trial No. 3 of''1974. A. N. Mui/a, K . .layaram and P. Chandrasekhar for th~ Appellant. A. V. Rcmgam and Miss A. Subhasini for the Respondent. The Judgn1ent of the Court was delivered by GoswAMI, J. This appeal by special leave is ~!irected 'again~t the judgment and order of the High Court of Madras convicting the appel- lant (hereinafter to be described as the accused) under section 302 TPC and sentencing him to death. • • ~ I ""-·· KARUNAKARAN v. TAMIL NADU (Goswami, /.) 709 The police had submitted charge-sheet under .section 30.2/34 ·IPC _ against the present ~ccused and accused !abamam N~dar ahas Kany~ kumari Comrade ahas Ramu and Tham1zharasan ahas Ramaswa1m, who was shown as an absconder. On the prayer of the' prosecution the case against the first two accused, without the absconding accus.ed, was taken up for trial. The two accused were charged under sect~on 120B read with sections 302 and 109 IPC as well as under sect10n 302/34 IPC. The case was referred to the High Court as usual and the accused also preferred appeals against their conviction and sentence. J. The High Court acquitted accused Jabamani Nadar alias Kanya- kumari Comrade alias Ramu and accepted the reference in respect of the present accused. His appeal was also dismissed. Hence this appeal by special leave. The fact~ are in a brief compass. The deceased, Viswanatham Pillai, was the village Munsif (Headman). On April 26, 1971, at about 10.00 P.M. he was sleeping on a bench outside his cattle-shed in the open space, which is shown in the site plan (Ex. P15) at No. 9. The younger brother of the deceased, Pandurangam (PW 4), who is a leper, was also sleeping on the eastern parapet of th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.